By rejecting the pro-Palestinian protests the government is making a terror attack more likely

By rejecting the pro-Palestinian protests the government is making a terror attack more likely
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
24-25 February 2024

There have now been nine national pro-Palestine demonstrations since October 7 2023.

Every two or three weeks hundreds of thousands of people have marched through London – and cities and towns across the UK – to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The biggest protest took place on November 11 2023, with organisers estimating 750,000 people on the streets of the capital. After climbing over a fence in Hyde Park (the opened gates couldn’t deal with the enormous number of people trying to get onto Park Lane to start marching) it took me a couple of hours to shuffle about a kilometre before I gave up and headed for home.

This tenacious movement has almost certainly had important impacts – think of how the government has become more critical of Israel, Keir Starmer’s shift to saying the “fighting must stop now”, and how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has admitted being worried about “the huge demonstrations in western capitals”. However, it has been unable to compel the government to end its support for Israel and call for a ceasefire.

No doubt some in Number 10 are revelling in the fact they have been able to stand firm in the face of this intense pressure. But it would be naïve to think at the end of every march people have simply gone home grumbling that nothing has changed.

Consider, for a moment, just how strongly someone must feel to give up one day of their weekend, travel to central London and walk achingly slowly in very cold temperatures. And then do it again and again. Seeing the passion and anger on display when I have marched it seems unlikely people will forget how the government and Starmer’s Labour Party have backed Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians.

As Iraq War architect Alastair Campbell told the Iraq Inquiry: “I always have a rule of thumb that, if somebody goes on a march, there are probably ten others who thought about it.” Fast forward to today and polls have repeatedly found a majority of Britons support a ceasefire in Gaza – 71 per cent of respondents in a December 2023 YouGov survey.

Campbell was commenting on the February  15 2003 anti-Iraq War march, which was also broadly reflective of wider public opinion. And though it’s often dismissed as being a complete failure, it provides a teachable case study, and an important warning, about the significant and unexpected influence large demonstrations can have on participants, national politics and society.

The biggest demonstration in British history, February 15 was the high point of an anti-war movement that started in the wake of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on the US and continued putting large numbers of people on British streets several years into the US-UK occupation of Iraq.

In the May 2005 general election, the first since the invasion, support for Labour fell by five per cent, with their governing majority dropping from 167 to 66 seats. “One of the last polls conducted [before the election] by the BBC… suggests hostility to the war was a bigger issue than has so far been acknowledged,” the Guardian noted. “The poll found 23% of people surveyed cited opposition to the war as a reason for being reluctant to vote Labour, while 21% said they did not trust Mr Blair”. There are echoes of this today with reports of Labour scrambling to stop the exodus of Muslim supporters, and voters “in affluent, predominantly white parts of the country, such as Bournemouth, Bristol and Brighton, where many voters also feel strongly about the Palestinian cause.”

And the strength of the anti-Iraq War movement arguably played a key role in terminating Tony Blair’s premiership and political career. By 2010 a ComRes poll found 37 per cent of voters thought the former prime minister should be put on trial for invading Iraq. Starmer, who is still only the leader of the opposition, has already been on the receiving end of a huge amount of flak over the war in Gaza.

The anti-Iraq War movement also led to a shift in activist tactics. Groups like anti-airport expansion group Plane Stupid and anti-austerity UK Uncut turned to nimble, media-friendly direct actions out of a frustration with the A to B marches of the anti-Iraq War movement. Ditto Black Bloc, the now largely forgotten masked activists who vandalised shops and banks during 2011 in opposition to the savage Tory cuts. “All of them said the failure of the peaceful anti-Iraq war march to overturn government policy was formative in their decision to turn to violence,” the Guardian reported after speaking to a number of people involved in actions.

Sadly, another small group of people turned to far more deadly violent action. We know at least one of the 7/7 suicide bombers, Germaine Lindsay, and three of the 21/7 failed suicide bombers – Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Hussain Osman – attended an anti-Iraq War protest. When he was captured in Rome, Osman said “I am against war. I’ve marched in peace rallies and nobody listened to me.”

Speaking to me for my book on the anti-Iraq War movement, author and activist Mike Marqusee provided a plausible explanation for this journey from non-violent protest to suicide bombings: “It is definitely true that the more you reject a community’s legal, lawful and non-violent expressions and aspirations the more some of them are going to turn to illegal and violent responses”.

When I asked terrorism expert Raffaello Pantucci about this in 2014, he urged caution about making any sweeping claims. “The link between the non-violent protest, subsequent frustration and action is not as linear as you might suggest”, he told me. “I would say that in both the 21/7 and 7/7 lot, there is considerable evidence that they were very radical before the invasion of Iraq. Iraq seems to have acted as an accelerator, but I would say that they were headed down that path long before the 2003 rally.”

The 7/7 atrocities will not have been a surprise to the government – before the Iraq War Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director General of UK security service MI5, warned ministers and officials that an invasion of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to Britain.

Similarly, in January the head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK warned there has been an “unprecedented” spike in terrorism threats since October 2023, with Israel’s war on Gaza creating a “radicalisation moment” with the potential to push more people towards terrorism. This follows European security officials reporting in November 2023 they are seeing a growing risk of attacks by Islamists radicalised by the war. “A British security official said the war in Gaza was likely to become the biggest recruiter for Islamist militants since the Iraq war in 2003,” according to Reuters.

As with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, these warnings confirm the UK government, by continuing to support Israel diplomatically and militarily, and therefore prolonging the brutal onslaught, is fuelling an increase in the terror threat in the UK. So, far from protecting British citizens, the government is actually endangering Britons. Indeed, the repeated expert warnings point to a dark truth: the safety of British citizens is ultimately a low priority for the government, and certainly a lower priority than supporting Israel’s bloodbath in Gaza.

Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair: An Oral History of 15 February 2003, published by Peace News Press. Follow Ian on X @IanJSinclair.

Missing in action: essential context in the Israeli attack on Gaza

Missing in action: essential context in the Israeli attack on Gaza
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
16 January 2024

“Most studies carried out prior to the current fighting in Gaza… have repeatedly found that it is the Israeli perspective that is favoured” in broadcast news coverage, Greg Philo and Mike Berry from the Glasgow Media Group recently noted in Open Democracy. Moreover, their own research in the 2000s found important historical background was often missing from UK media reporting.

For example, during the second intifada (the Palestinian uprising from 2000 to 2005) the two academics sampled 3,500 lines of transcribed news text from the first three weeks of the rebellion on BBC1 and ITV1 lunchtime, early evening and late news bulletins. Only 17 lines across both channels mentioned any aspect of the history of the conflict.

Since the October 7 attack on Israel, the mainstream media has continued to ignore crucial context and information.

Israel is using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza

On October 9 Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant stated Israel was “imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” Predictably, in December Human Rights Watch reported “the Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Gaza Strip”, which is a war crime.

Israel targets medical facilities in Gaza

In December, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported “at least 364 attacks on healthcare services have been recorded in the occupied Palestinian territory” since October 7, “resulting in at least 553 people killed and 729 injured”. Israel has declared an “unrelenting war” on the health system in Gaza, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health Tlaleng Mofokeng stated. “The practice of medicine is under attack.”

In November, Médecins Sans Frontières reported one of their evacuation convoys “came under fire in Gaza City in what immediately appeared to be a deliberate attack against clearly identified MSF vehicles” (“all elements point to Israeli army responsibility,” was the report’s title).

This is not new. Based on testimony from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel, in 2014 Amnesty International called for an immediate investigation “into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead”.

Israel has a long history of using human shields

“Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as human shields,” B’Tselem, Israel’s premier human rights organisation, confirmed in 2017. “As part of this policy, soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to remove suspicious objects from roads, to tell people to come out of their homes so the military can arrest them, to stand in front of soldiers while the latter shoot from behind them, and more.”

Amnesty International have also documented the widespread use of human shields by Israeli forces, and a 2013 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child report voiced concern about Israel’s “continuous use of Palestinian children as human shields and informants”.

Israel helped to create Hamas

In a 2018 video for The Intercept Mehdi Hasan explained that in the 1970s and 1980s Israel empowered the precursor to Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Mujama al-Islamiya association, in an attempt to undermine the power of the dominant Palestinian force, the secular nationalist Palestinian Liberation Organisation. When Yassin – who went on to found Hamas – led the building of Islamist schools, clubs, clinics and mosques in Gaza, Israel helped fund some of the projects. “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, the Israeli official responsible for religious affairs in Gaza until 1994, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009.

And it’s not ancient history. In December the New York Times published a bombshell story, reporting that for many years Qatar has been sending millions of dollars month to Gaza, helping to prop up the Hamas government. In September Qatar asked Israel whether they wanted the payments to continue. Israel confirmed they did. According to the New York Times Israel saw the money as a way of maintaining the peace in Gaza, by keeping Hamas focussed on governing rather than fighting. However, the report also referred to “the Israeli government’s view that Hamas was… a political asset.” Why? We are back to divide and rule. In 2012 Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank… having two strong rivals… would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.”

Hamas has repeatedly offered peace to Israel

While Hamas is generally presented as a intransigent, fanatical organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel, writing in Peace News recently Milan Rai explained “Hamas has consistently, repeatedly and publicly offered Israel a 10-year truce or hudna – on condition that Israel withdraw to its 1967 border”.

Rai lists ten examples of Hamas peace offers over the last 30 years, including when Jimmy Carter met Hamas leaders in Syria in 2008.

His reading is broadly confirmed by a 2009 report from the United States Institute of Peace, a think tank funded by the US Congress, which noted Hamas “has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel” and “indicated on a number of occasions its willingness to accede to a hudna with Israel”.

Israel has repeatedly rejected peace with the Palestinians

“In the speeches of [US] politicians and in [US] newspapers op-eds, it’s a matter of faith that Israel has always yearned for peace but has been constantly rebuffed by the Palestinians,” The Intercept’s Jon Schwarz noted in November. “This is not quite 180 degrees the opposite of reality, but close. In the actual world… Israel could have had peace at many times in the past 75 years.” Schwarz continued: this would require “Israel giving up most of the Palestinian land – specifically, Gaza and

the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – it conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel has always preferred conflict with stateless Palestinians to that.”

The crucial obstruction is Israeli opposition to a viable Palestinian state. As liberal icon Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin explained after the much ballyhooed 1993 Oslo Accords, “We do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state.”

The US and UK have repeatedly blocked non-violent attempts by Palestinians to protect themselves from Israeli aggression and end the occupation

In 2015 the Palestinian Authority (PA) asked permission for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation in war crimes committed by Israel in the West Bank. “This led to the US and UK coming down on the PA like a ton of bricks,” the Guardian reported in November. After being urged to drop the ICC investigation by President Biden in 2022, the Guardian noted “[Palestinian President] Abbas refused, saying it was one of the few non-violent routes available to opposing Israeli settlements.”

Ditto the December 2022 request from the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories – also opposed by the US and UK. Indeed the Guardian disclosed that “even a modest attempt [by the Palestinians] to join the UN’s tourism body” in 2017 “was abandoned due to US pressure.”

And when Hamas defeated Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, the US quickly moved to punish the winners of the democratic vote, imposing economic sanctions. More shockingly, the US covertly attempted “to provoke a Palestinian civil war”, Vanity Fair revealed in 2008. “The plan was [to arm Fatah]… with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power.”

Writing in his 2010 book Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide, Khaled Hroub explains the ramifications of Israeli, US and UK efforts to block Palestinian initiatives to protect themselves from Israeli aggression and end the occupation. “When [Palestinian] people have been more hopeful of movement in peace talks with Israel, Hamas’s ‘programme for resistance’ tended to generate more doubt, and a drop in Hamas supporters followed. By contrast, when frustration with fruitless talks has been mounting and exacerbated by continuous Israeli humiliation of Palestinians, in such a charged atmosphere Hamas has tended to gain more support in any elections held.”

Follow Ian on X @IanJSinclair.

The British media’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza

The British media’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
7 December 2023

Printed in full by Jadaliyya, on October 24 Rami Ruhayem, a BBC correspondent based in Beirut, sent an extraordinary email to BBC Director General Tim Davie, raising “the gravest possible concerns” about the corporation’s post October 7 coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“It appears to me that information that is highly significant and relevant is either entirely missing or not being given due prominence in coverage,” Ruhayem argued. “This includes expert opinion that Israel’s action could amount to genocide, evidence in support of that opinion, and historical context without which the public cannot form a basic understanding of the unfolding events.”

On October 18 over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies signed an open letter warning “about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces” in Gaza. The next day the UN experts group noted “there is… a risk of genocide against the Palestinian people.” And then on October 31 the Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights resigned in protest, arguing Israel’s actions against Palestinians are “a text-book case of genocide.”

Ruhayem also reasoned that while the Hamas terror attacks were a major news event, it doesn’t mean history started on October 7. “We should incorporate into our coverage an accurate, balanced, fair, and truthful representation of the reality leading up to that moment,” he urged, highlighting three terms usually omitted from BBC coverage: “apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism.”

Ruhayem concluded his brave challenge by noting “this is not about mistakes here and there, or even about systematic bias in favour of Israel. The question now is a question of complicity.”

Unsurprisingly the BBC hasn’t reported on the email, and from what I can tell neither has the UK national press, except for The Times.

However, it seems Ruhayem is far from alone at the BBC. Al Jazeera recently reported it had received a letter from eight UK-based journalists employed by the BBC, making similar complaints. They highlight double standards of the BBC’s coverage of Palestinian and Ukrainian civilians, and how terms such as “massacre” and “atrocity” have been “reserved only for Hamas”. They also criticise how Palestinian guests are repeatedly asked to “condemn Hamas”, with Israeli officials rarely, if ever, asked to condemn the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how high the death toll in Gaza.

Depressingly, all of this closely echoes the findings of Bad News From Israel, the Glasgow Media Group’s study of UK news coverage of the conflict published nearly 20 years ago. Referring to key historical events in the conflict – 1948 and 1967 – they conclude “Television news has largely denied its audiences an account” of the conflict’s history “and in doing so has both confused viewers and reduced the understanding of the actions of those involved.” They note, for example, “Many in our audience samples did not even understand that there was a military occupation or that it was widely seen as illegal.” The research also found there was an emphasis on Israeli casualties by television news – both in the amount of coverage and the language used – despite there being a greater number of Palestinian casualties. “In our samples of news content, words such as ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold-blood killing’ and ‘lynching’ were used by journalists to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians/Arabs.”

Though it has published some important reports about the assault on Gaza, The Guardian’s coverage has also routinely exhibited a pro-Israel, pro US-UK bias. For example, Guardian journalists have repeatedly stated the “conflict began on 7 October”. And the White House’s press office was no doubt thrilled by the liberal paper’s October 16 front page headline: US In Last Ditch Effort To Reduce Impact Of Israeli Assault On Gaza. In contrast, the Times of Israel reported on October 30 “The Pentagon continues to provide weapons shipments almost on a daily basis to Israel.” The story quoted Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh: “We are not putting any limits on how Israel uses weapons.”

The Guardian also gave the UK government the benefit of the doubt when it reported, on October 13, that Britain was sending surveillance aircraft, Royal Navy ships and 100 Royal Marines to the eastern Mediterranean. Why? “To support Israel and help prevent any sudden escalation of fighting in the Middle East,” Defence and Security Editor Dan Sabbagh explained. No doubt many readers were surprised to learn Gaza was no longer in the Middle East.

It gets worse. In a November 23 article The Guardian reported the Israeli hostages about to be released were “women and children”, while the Palestinian prisoners being released were “women and people aged 18 and younger” (a correction has since been made).

More broadly, from what I can tell none of the UK national media – except for the Morning Star – has deemed Declassified UK’s recent exclusive highlighting a huge increase in UK flights from the UK military base in Cyprus to Israel after October 7 to be newsworthy.

What explains the UK media’s coverage of the conflict? It’s worth remembering the media, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, tends to follow the UK government’s narrative and framing, with critical reporting largely limited to criticisms made by the parliamentary opposition. And we know the UK government, itself subservient to pro-Israel US foreign policy, has long had a close and supportive relationship with Israel, with deep military, intelligence and commercial ties between the two countries.

In addition, the evidence suggests a relatively powerful pro-Israel lobby has an impact on UK politics. According to the programme makers of the 2009 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups”. Likewise, Declassified UK recently revealed “Some 13 of the 31 members of Labour’s shadow cabinet have received donations from a prominent pro-Israel lobby group [Labour Friends of Israel] or individual funder [pro-Israel business tycoon Sir Trevor Chinn]”.

In his published diaries, Alan Duncan, de facto deputy foreign minister from 2016-19, recounts telling Simon McDonald, then Head of the UK diplomatic service, “The CFI and the Israelis think they control the Foreign Office. And they do!’”

No doubt Duncan was exaggerating for effect but a similar influence can be seen on media reporting. As one senior editor from a major BBC news programme revealed to Professor Greg Philo of the Glasgow Media Group: “We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis.”

What all this means is that just like with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the public simply cannot trust the media to provide accurate, critical or historically contextual coverage of the war on Gaza.

And just like with Iraq, a huge chasm has opened up between the public and the establishment. So while BBC Today Programme presenter Amol Rajan recently let it slip that “as broadcasters we generally err on the side… of trying not to give too much airtime to protests”, hundreds of thousands of people marched for a ceasefire in London on November 12. This huge demonstration seems to reflect broader public opinion, with an October YouGov poll of Britons finding 76% of respondents also backed a ceasefire.

We know the Israeli government is hyper aware of global public opinion. Asked on November 13 what the “diplomatic window” for the military campaign in Gaza is, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen answered “two or three weeks”, according to the Times of Israel. As the BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen explains, Israel has two clocks. “One is military: how long do they need before they accomplish their military objectives? The other is diplomatic: how long does Israel hold legitimacy to carry out that operation before its allies say, ‘you’ve killed enough people, civilians, you need to stop now please.’”

The huge protest marches, train station sit-ins, school walkouts, tens of thousands of letters sent to MPs and direct action by groups including Palestine Action, Fossil Free London and Parents For Palestine are no doubt already influencing the decision-making of the UK political and media elite. The task now is to maintain and increase this popular pressure so the government is forced to shift away from backing Israel’s mass slaughter in Gaza.

Follow Ian on X @IanJSinclair.

List of experts and organisations describing Israel’s attack on Gaza as genocide, or warning there is a serious risk of genocide

List of experts and organisations describing Israel’s attack on Gaza as genocide, or warning there is a serious risk of genocide
by Ian Sinclair
21 December 2023

“…the assault on Gaza can also be understood in other terms: as a textbook case of genocide unfolding in front of our eyes. I say this as a scholar of genocide, who has spent many years writing about Israeli mass violence against Palestinians” – Raz Segal, an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide, 13 October 2023.

“As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” – 790 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, 15 October 2023.

‘There is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in the occupied Gaza Strip. In their public statements and speeches, Israeli officials have used dehumanizing language, describing Palestinians in Gaza as “human animals.” They have also been unequivocal in the goal of maximum harm, stating that the “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy” using “fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known”’ – US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, 18 October 2023.

“We are sounding the alarm: There is an ongoing campaign by Israel resulting in crimes against humanity in Gaza. Considering statements made by Israeli political leaders and their allies, accompanied by military action in Gaza and escalation of arrests and killing in the West Bank, there is also a risk of genocide against the Palestine people” – United Nations Experts (seven Special Rapporteurs), 19 October 2023.

“A text-book case of genocide” – Craig Mokhiber, Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 28 October 2023.

“As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening…  in justifying the assault, Israeli leaders and generals have made terrifying pronouncements that indicate a genocidal intent… My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action” – Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, 10 November 2023.

“Given the high threshold to establish a case of genocide under the UN convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (December 1948), particularly because of the requirement to prove an ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,’ it is remarkable… that much evidence points to the crime of genocide in Israel’s attack on Gaza after October 7, 2023” – Dr John Cox, Director of the Center for Holocaust, Genocide & Human Rights Studies, UNC Charlotte, Dr Victoria Sanford, Professor of Anthropology, Lehman College, and Dr Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Wake Forest University, 13 November 2023.

“Many of us already raised the alarm about the risk of genocide in Gaza. We are deeply disturbed by the failure of governments to heed our call and to achieve an immediate ceasefire. We are also profoundly concerned about the support of certain governments for Israel’s strategy of warfare against the besieged population of Gaza, and the failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide” – 41 United Nations Experts, 16 November 2023.

“I’ve warned three times [about] the risk that Israel might be committing the crime of genocide in Gaza… there has been calls to flatten Gaza, to erase Gaza from Earth, and to kill the Gazans because they are ‘also responsible for what Hamas has done’ and there is no distinction here between civilians and militants” – Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian Territories, 20 November 2023.

‘Slaughter of civilians on such an industrial scale may well have taken Israel to the verge of committing genocide, “the crime of all crimes”.’ – Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, 6 December 2023.

“We, scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, feel compelled to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel’s attack on Gaza” – 60 scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, 9 December 2023.

“The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) recognises that Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people constitute an unfolding genocide. States and individuals who provide assistance to Israel are hereby rendering themselves complicit.” – International Federation for Human Rights, 12 December 2023.

“As public health and humanitarian professionals, we the authors state emphatically that the grave risk of genocide against the Palestinian people warrants immediate—and now overdue—action” – six public health and humanitarian professionals, 18 December 2023.

“Genocidal intent is assumed to be the most difficult element to prove, but Israelis in charge of prosecuting this conflict have made a plethora of statements that easily prove the requisite intent to ‘destroy in whole or in part’ the Palestinian population in Gaza” – Susan Akram, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University, 29 December 2023.

“The UN’s top court has ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza, but stopped short of telling it to halt the war… South Africa had asked the court to order Israel to stop military action straight away pending a decision on whether Israel has committed genocide… The ICJ found it did have jurisdiction on the matter, and decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage.” – International Court of Justice, 26 January 2024.

Self-defence and the right to resist in Palestine: Marjorie Cohn interview

Self-defence and the right to resist in Palestine: Marjorie Cohn interview
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
11-12 November 2023

“Israel has a right to defend herself.” This supposed moral truism has been repeated incessantly, by public figures on the right and left, since the Hamas terror attacks on October 7.

Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and a former president of the US National Lawyers Guild, has a different view. Ian Sinclair asked her what international law says about Israel’s right to self-defence, and Israeli actions against Palestinians more generally.


There is a consensus across most of the political spectrum in the US and UK that, in the words of UK Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, “Israel has a right to defend herself” following the Hamas attacks on October 7. What does international law say about this?

The United Nations (UN) Charter requires all states to settle their international disputes peacefully so as not to endanger international peace and security. That doesn’t just apply to states, but also to the settlement of any international disputes. The Charter says no state can use military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state “or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Although Israel denies that Palestine is a state, the Israeli Supreme Court in the Targeted Killings case recognized the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians to be of an international character. Israel cannot use the Palestinians’ lack of statehood to justify its use of military force.

The only two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force are when a state acts in self-defense or the [UN] Security Council authorizes force. A state may use military force in self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter “if an armed attack occurs” against a state. The use of armed force for reprisal or retaliation is prohibited.

For an armed attack to give rise to the right of self-defence, it must be directed from outside the territory under the control of the defending state. A state cannot invoke the right of self-defence to defend against an attack which originates inside a territory it occupies. Because Israel has continued to occupy Gaza, it has relinquished its right to claim self-defence in response to the Palestinian attacks.

In its 2004 advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established the non-applicability of “self-defence” under Article 51 in the situation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite its unilateral removal of settlements. After the 2005 election of Hamas, Israel imposed a blockade against Gaza which is specifically listed as an act of aggression under [UN] General Assembly Resolution 3314.

An occupying force has a duty to protect the people it occupies; it cannot claim self-defence against the occupied. Actions taken by Palestinians to resist the blockade are not “acts of aggression” so they do not allow Israel to claim it is acting in self-defence.

Aside from the illegality of targeting and killing civilians, what does international law say about Palestinians resisting the occupation, including with armed force?

Whether the use of force in the first instance is lawful is a separate question from how that force is carried out. For targeting and killing civilians and taking hostages, Hamas leaders can be charged with war crimes.

The Palestinians, however, have the right to self-determination and the right to resist Israel’s occupation of their territory, including through armed struggle. In 1983, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

Gaza, together with the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are part of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The Occupied Palestinian Territory is a single territorial unit over which the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is enshrined in international law, according to the ICJ’s Wall decision.

The legal test for occupation is “effective control,” which exists if the military forces of the adversary could assume physical control of any part of the country at any time. By declaring that “Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip,” Israel’s 2005 ‘Disengagement Plan’ reveals Israel’s intention to maintain effective control over Gaza.

Israel continues to exert military control over Gaza through a continuous flow of military operations in and against Gaza. Israel exerts administrative control over the population of Gaza through the exclusive control over the movement of goods and people, the civil population registry, and the tax and revenue system.

Israel continuously maintains control over Gaza’s borders, sea and air space, water, electricity, sewage and telecommunication systems. UN Security Council resolution 1860 issued in 2009 states that “the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967.”

Gaza and its inhabitants remain under Israeli effective control and is therefore, occupied. The Palestinians have the right to use military force to resist Israel’s occupation.

Since October 7 the US and UK have made public statements in support of Israel as it pummels Gaza, continues to provide huge amounts of arms to Israel, and has protected Israel from censure at the UN. Does the support the US and UK are giving Israel contravene international law?

The Rome Statute [which established the International Criminal Court] provides that an individual can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” the commission or attempted commission of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. This includes “providing the means for its commission,” with knowledge of the illegal purpose.

In addition to the $3.8 billion a year the US furnishes Israel for military assistance, the Biden Administration is sending overwhelming firepower and providing diplomatic and political cover for Israel’s war on the Palestinian people. Congress is on the verge of appropriating billions of dollars more in aid to Israel.

The US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for a ceasefire and urged Israel to rescind its order to 1.1 million Gazans to leave their homes and move to southern Gaza.

The UK supplies the Israeli Air Force and provides components for the F-35 stealth combat aircraft that Israel is using to bomb Gaza. The Campaign Against Arms Trade estimates this trade is worth 336 million pounds since 2016.

US and UK leaders can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

How do you think Israel should have responded to the October 7 attacks?

The only path to safety and security is through international law, not vengeance and retaliation. Israel should have heeded the UN Charter’s command to settle its disputes peacefully and, for the first time, engaged in real peace talks with the Palestinians.

If Israel really wanted peace, it would end its occupation and blockade of Gaza, its state and colonial violence, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It would end its system of settler colonialism and apartheid and it would dismantle the Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. And it would allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes with full compensation, as required by international law.

Israel must release all Palestinian prisoners and end its use of torture and administrative detention. There are currently approximately 5,250 Palestinian prisoners (including 39 women and 170 children) in Israeli jails, including nearly 1,350 jailed without charge or trial under arbitrary and unlawful administrative detention.

If Israel truly wanted peace with the Palestinians, it would not work to undermine the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment and sanctions. They described BDS as “non-violent punitive measures” that would last until Israel fully complies with international law by (1) ending its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands and dismantling its barrier wall; (2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as stipulated in [UN] General Assembly Resolution 194.

Why is no one talking about how senior Labour Party figures whitewash apartheid?

Why is no one talking about how senior Labour Party figures whitewash apartheid?
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
25 February 2022

Amnesty International’s recent report condemning Israel for “committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians” is a damning indictment of the current Israeli government (and its predecessors), and its supporters around the world.

After carrying out research for four years, Amnesty concludes “Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has control over their rights”, including Palestinians living in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and displaced refugees in other countries.

Defining apartheid as “an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination by one racial group over another,” Amnesty explains Israel’s “massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.” This constitutes a “crime against humanity”, the human rights organisation notes.

Amnesty also has a message to those backing Israel: “governments who continue to supply Israel with arms, and shield it from accountability at the UN are supporting a system of apartheid, undermining the international legal order, and exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people.”

The UK does exactly this. In 2018 the Campaign Against Arms Trade exposed how British defence contractors were selling record amounts of arms to Israel, with the UK issuing £221m worth of arms licences to defence companies exporting to Israel. This made Israel the UK’s eighth largest market for UK arms companies, the Guardian reported.

The same year, Mark Curtis, the Editor of Declassified UK, highlighted “consistent British support for Israel internationally, helping to shield it from ostracism”. In 2017 the Foreign Office refused to sign a joint declaration issued at a Paris peace conference on Palestine attended by 70 nations, accusing it of “taking place against the wishes of the Israelis”. And in 2019 the then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt confirmed the UK would oppose motions criticising rights abuses carried out by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza that are brought to the UN’s Human Rights Council.

While the world’s leading human rights organisation criticising Israel for perpetrating the crime of apartheid is hugely significant, it is important to remember Amnesty is just the latest group to come to this conclusion.

In April 2021 Human Rights Watch declared Israel was committing the crime of apartheid, enforcing the policy to “maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians.” Drawing on years of documentation, analysis of Israeli laws, government planning documents and public statements by officials, the rights organisation concluded Israeli authorities “systematically discriminate against Palestinians” and have adopted policies to counter what it describes as a demographic “threat” from Palestinians.

Similarly, in January 2021 B’Tselem, the leading domestic rights group in Israel, described Israel as an “apartheid regime”.

“One organising principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians.” Hagai El-Ad, the group’s director, noted “Israel is not a democracy that has a temporary occupation attached to it. It is one regime between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid.”

Likewise, Yossi Sarid, a former Israeli cabinet minister and longstanding member of Israel’s parliament, said in 2008: “What acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid.” Famously, former US President Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid in 2006, and in 2002 Desmond Tutu, who knew a thing or two about apartheid, told a conference in Boston about a recent visit to the Holy Land and how “it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa.”

Though the UK media have studiously avoided making the link, the reports from Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, and the quotes above, have huge ramifications for key figures in the UK Labour Party.

Giving the keynote speech at the November 2021 Labour Friends of Israel’s annual lunch, Keir Starmer noted Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948 “committed the new state to freedom, justice and peace; complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

“Israel herself is the first to acknowledge that at times she falls short of these goals”, he continued, “But we will continue to support Israel’s rumbustious democracy, its independent judiciary, and its commitment to the rule of law”.

The Labour leader said Labour Party saw their counterparts in the Israeli Labor party “as comrades in the international struggle for equality, peace and freedom”, before quoting Prime Minister Harold Wilson: “social democrats who made the desert flower.”

The assertion it was Israeli pioneers who made the desert bloom repeats one of the founding – and racist – myths of Israel. Novara Media’s Aaron Bastani tweeted why at the time of Starmer’s speech: “The reason why is because it implies it was ‘terra nullius’, nobody’s land, & therefore fine to be appropriated. The story of colonialism.”

Starmer also explained the UK Labour Party does not support the Boycott, Disinvestment and Solidarity campaign against Israel. Why? “Its principles are wrong – targeting alone the world’s sole Jewish state”.

“We believe that international law should be adhered to”, he stated, and therefore Labour “opposes and condemns” illegal settlements, and annexation and the eviction of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Starmer said nothing, of course, about Israel being an apartheid state.

Speaking at a 2017 Jewish News/Bicom Balfour 100 event, Emily Thornberry MP, then Shadow Foreign Secretary, echoed Starmer’s sentiments: Israel “still stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particular in respect of women and LGBT communities, in a region where oppression, discrimination and inequality is too often the norm.”

And speaking at the 2017 Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner, Thornberry praised former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres as “a hero of the left, of the state of Israel and of the cause of peace.”

In contrast, in 2005 US dissident Noam Chomsky called Peres “an iconic mass murderer,” presumably for his role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that led to the creation of Israel and for being Prime Minister when Israel shelled a United Nations compound in Lebanon in 1996, killing over 100 civilians. After conducting an investigation, Amnesty International concluded the attack was intentional.

Labour MP Lisa Nandy excels at smearing critics of Israel. Interviewed on the BBC in early 2020 when she was running to be Labour leader, presenter Andrew Neil asked her about online Labour activist Rachael Cousins, “who’s tweeted calling the Board of Deputies of British Jews Conservative [Party] backers, and demanding that they disassociate themselves from that party, and that they condemn all Israeli military atrocities in the West Bank – her words. Is that anti-Semitic?” Nandy is quick to respond: “Yes.”

And when there were nonviolent protests at the London School of Economics in November 2021 against Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely, Nandy, then Shadow Foreign Secretary, tweeted: “The appalling treatment of Israeli Ambassador @TzipiHotovely is completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and any attempt to silence or intimidate those we disagree with should never be tolerated.”

Reading these quotes in light of all the reports and testimony above is nothing short of shocking. As the American historian Howard Zinn once noted, “The truth is so often the reverse of what has been told us by our culture that we cannot turn our heads far enough around to see it.”

The Labour Party’s code of conduct notes it “will not tolerate racism in any form inside or outside the party” and that “any behaviour or use of language which… undermines Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conduct within the Labour Party.” Surely, then, the whitewashing of, and apologism for, the racist Israeli apartheid state carried out by Starmer and co. should lead to them being expelled from the Labour Party?

Follow Ian on Twitter @IanJSinclair.

Russian Interference in Western Politics? What about Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE?

Russian Interference in Western Politics? What about Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE?
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
3 October 2018

With almost the entire Western media in a constant state of mass hysteria about Russian interference in Western political systems, it’s worth considering some pertinent information largely missing from the debate.

First, it is likely the scale and effectiveness of Russian interventions has been greatly exaggerated. “The simplistic narrative that basically imagines that a bunch of subliterate-in-English trolls posting mostly static and sort of absurd advertising could have influenced American public opinion to such an extent that it fundamentally changed American politics is ridiculous on the face of it”, argued Masha Gessen, a US-Russian journalist and outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin, when asked about Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election by National Public Radio.

“I feel a lot of pressure… from interviewers and from people to kind of blow up the threat”, said New Yorker’s Adrian Chen – one of the first to write about Russian internet trolls – agreeing with Gessen. “People want to talk about how scary this is, how sophisticated it is. There’s not a lot of room for, you know, just kind of dampening down the issue.”

Turning to the Brexit vote, research by the Oxford Internet Institute looked at 22.6 million tweets sent between March and July 2016, finding just 416 tweets from the Russian Internet Research Agency – the organisation the US Senate says is involved in interfering in Western elections. A second report from the University of Edinburgh discovered 419 accounts operated by the Agency attempting to influence UK politics. However, the study’s lead researcher told the Guardian these 419 accounts tweeted about Brexit a total of just 3,468 times – mostly after the referendum had taken place.

Second, when asked about US claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential race, US academic Noam Chomsky replied “My guess is that most of the world is just collapsing in laughter.” Why? Because when it comes to undermining democratic systems Russia is an absolute beginner compared to the United States.

Here is the New York Times in February 2018: “Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate’s Church Committee, says Russia’s 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades.”

According to a database compiled by political scientist Don Levin from Carnegie Mellon University, the US attempted to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000. In contrast, he found the Soviet Union/Russia had attempted to sway 36 elections in the same period. Reporting on the database in December 2016, the Los Angeles Times notes the US figure “doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the US didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.”

On top of all this, the evidence clearly shows other nations have exerted a level of influence on Western governments and political systems that Russia could only dream of.

Chomsky again, this time speaking to Democracy Now! in August 2018: “If you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.”

Chomsky is referring to Israel, whose “intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done”, he says. “I mean, even to the point where the Prime Minister of Israel, [Benjamin] Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies” —a reference to Netanyahu’s attempt, in 2015, to destroy the US-led deal to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Back in the UK, in January 2017 the Middle East Eye reported on “undercover recordings” that “revealed how an Israeli diplomat sought to establish organisations and youth groups to promote Israeli influence inside the opposition Labour party, in an effort to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.” Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat, said he had helped set up other groups in the UK which, although they presented themselves as independent, received support from the Israeli Embassy.

Israel is not the only Middle East nation who works to undercut Western democracies. In 2006 the Guardian reported that the British government – citing ‘national security’ concerns – had halted a Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems, connected to their dealings with Saudi Arabia. According to the article “In recent weeks, BAE and the Saudi embassy had frantically lobbied the government for the long-running investigation to be discontinued.”

Like its regional ally in Riyadh, the United Arab Emirates has also been busy, carrying out an “intense lobbying campaign… over the last few years” in the UK, according to a new Spinwatch report. This campaign has “helped shape UK government policy towards Muslims at home, and UK and US foreign policy in the Middle East”.

This “massive” PR effort by the corporate-friendly Gulf dictatorship appears to have “had the desired effect”, Spinwatch notes. “With pressure building on Downing Street… the Emiratis pulled off” a “spectacular lobbying success… in March 2014, [British Prime Minister David] Cameron, out of almost nowhere, announced a review into the Muslim Brotherhood” – a useful folk devil for the UAE government.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have also been trying to influence the heart of global power in Washington. For example, the Associated Press noted the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and the UAE that started in June 2017 “ignited a multimillion-dollar battle for influence” with the two rivals spending “heavily over the last year on lawyers, lobbyists, public relations and advertising to seek better trade and security relationships with the United States”.

In a March 2018 article the New York Times reported on “an active effort to cultivate President Trump on behalf of the two oil-rich Arab monarchies” UAE and Saudi Arabia. The aim? “Pushing the White House to remove Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson” and “backing confrontational approaches to Iran and Qatar” – something Tillerson was seen as a block on.

This lobbying seems to have achieved one of its goals, with the New York Times’s Roger Cohen revealing that a European ambassador had told him about a December 2017 dinner party in Washington he attended along with Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner and UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba. After the ambassador had complained to Kushner that his nation’s foreign minister was having difficulty organising a meeting with Tillerson, apparently Otaiba said “Things will be much better when Mike’s installed.” Tillerson was sacked four months later, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

What all this confirms is that media reporting and commentary is largely framed by the concerns of the governing elite. Which explains the difference in the size and tone of coverage – Russia has been designated an Official Enemy of the West, while Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE are close allies. However, it is important to separate the interests of Western elites and those of the general population. So while it is obvious why the British elite would want a close ties with the authoritarian monarchies in the Gulf, it is difficult to see what the British public get out of these unholy associations.

The obsessive focus on Russian interference serves a couple of important functions. First, as highlighted above, it hides inconvenient but important truths – that many of our so-called allies are carrying out sophisticated and long-running campaigns to undermine the will of Western publics. And second, it acts as a displacement activity – instead of looking at the deep-seated domestic reasons behind Trump’s victory and why the UK voted for Brexit we continue to be fixated on the all-powerful evil Disney villain Putin.

As always, to see through the fog of propaganda and gain an accurate understanding of the world citizens need to be careful and critical consumers of the mainstream corporate news, making sure to combine their intake with a healthy dose of alternative and independent media.

Ian Sinclair tweets at @IanJSinclair

Antisemitism and the Labour Party: Rebecca Ruth Gould interview

Antisemitism and the Labour Party: Rebecca Ruth Gould interview
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
3 September 2018

Last month Professor Rebecca Ruth Gould from the University of Birmingham published an article titled ‘Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech’ in the peer-reviewed academic journal Law, Culture and the Humanities – “the first extended scholarly treatment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition of antisemitism”.

Ian Sinclair: The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland has referred to “Labour’s failure to adopt the full text of the near universally accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.” Does this characterisation concur with your research?

Rebecca Ruth Gould: Freedland’s claims are misleading and inaccurate. The leading American-Jewish newspaper, The Forward, offers a very different account of the IHRA’s status within the Jewish community. In its pages, the IHRA (both the organization and the definition) has been described as “worthy of outrage,” by Lev Golyakin, who also points out that over a fifth of the 31 IHRA’s member countries “are currently engaged in outright glorification of Nazi collaborators and Holocaust distortion and/or denial.” Why should anyone take guidance from an organisation that collaborates with the rightwing governments of Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania, which have recently been engaged in whitewashing their role in the Holocaust? Yair Wallach has further shown in Haaretz, Israel’s leading liberal newspaper, that the IHRA definition is useless for addressing antisemitism due to its failure to engage with structural racism.  Finally, Freedland’s reference to the “full text” is misleading. During the IHRA delegate meeting in 2016, the examples were determined to be advisory, and not part of the full definition itself. Yet Freedland, along with many other UK commentators, erroneously refers to the “full text” as if that included the examples. This conflicts with the IHRA’s own position. While it is true that the definition has been adopted by all IHRA member states by virtue of their membership, the “full text” of the definition from the point of view of the IHRA and its member states is precisely the two-sentence definition and not the examples, as the press release makes clear when it states “the following examples may serve as illustrations.”

The recent weaponisation of the IHRA definition is itself conducive to antisemitism. It falsely suggests that there is a consensus among Jews around this document and its uses, and that all Jews oppose criticism of Israel, when in fact the most intense and significant criticism of human rights violations by the state of Israel generally comes from Jewish scholars, NGOs, activists, and lawyers, who oppose the ways in which this nation-state presumes to speak on their behalf and in their name when it discriminates against Palestinians.

IS: What effect has the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism had on civil society and public debate in the UK?

RRG: Increased censorship, within the mainstream media and on university campuses (the focus on my article), has been the most notable effect. Antisemitism experts and scholars like Brian Klug, David Feldman, Stephen Sedley, Anthony Lerman, Rachel Shabi, Kenneth Stern, Adam Wagner, have made important contributions to the debate, but their voices are drowned out by a headline-hungry media. These individuals do not represent a consensus; they have written in various ways about the definition and about antisemitism more generally. In some cases, they support the use of the IHRA definition for specific purposes (such as the classification of hate crimes by the police), but in most cases, they oppose its adoption for the purpose of censoring speech. I don’t agree with them on all particulars, but I respect their voices. They speak from multiple sides of the debate, and their voices should be heard.

And yet their wise, intelligent, and discerning words have not been given a platform in the same way as have more narrow-minded commentators like Jonathan Arkush and Jonathan Freedland. To its shame, The Guardian (a newspaper that has led the way in exposing the injustice of the UK immigration regime) has refused to recognize non-Zionist Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Labour in their coverage and has contributed significantly to the false narrative of consensus around the IHRA definition. I should note in fairness that The Guardian has good coverage of human rights violations in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, but its coverage of the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party has been appallingly one-sided.

Just as non-Zionist Jews have been silenced in this debate, so too have the voices of Palestinians and their supporters. While BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) groups recently published a letter noting their concerns with the document, they have generally been denied a platform to express their views in mainstream media outlets. And yet the proposal to ban anti-Israel speech affects them too. The adoption of the IHRA examples would send a message that the “right to self-determination” of the Jewish people (as stipulated in the examples) is sacrosanct in ways that rights for Palestinians are not, and that Jewish rights matter more than the rights of other ethnic minorities. Minimally, this a double standard. Maximally, it is prejudice that seeks to be enshrined in law. Although the working definition has no legal status, my article shows how it has been interpreted in UK university contexts as if it were a law. Notably, proposals targeting Islamophobic speech have not received the same airtime in mainstream media outlets. I would oppose those too, because censoring speech is inconsistent with democracy.

IS: What advice would you give to organisations, such as the Labour Party, which are considering – or are in the process of – adopting the IHRA working definition and examples?

RRG: The first thing that must be said in any consideration about how a European political party ought to address antisemitism is that Europe’s history of antisemitism and role in the genocide of the Jewish people means that the dangers of antisemitism will always need to be given serious consideration. Just as every accusation of sexual harassment should be taken seriously, complaints of antisemitism must be treated with empathy and open-minded inquiry, even in cases of intense political disagreement. In a political context that is witnessing the ascendancy of rightwing neo-Nazism across Europe (in Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Germany) we cannot afford to trivialise antisemitism, even as we rightly resist its weaponisation. Antisemitism is so deeply implicated in European history that it is hardly surprising if the discourse around Israel has in certain ways exacerbated antisemitism.

I don’t therefore support those who deny that there is any antisemitism in the Labour Party. Labour has nothing to gain by taking such a position. There is always room for self-education and self-critique. But we need to move beyond the idea that policing speech is an adequate solution, or that the best way to respond to politically-motivated pressure (which has less to do with Israel than with factions within the Labour Party, many of which are not Jewish) is to concede to it. If we allow one political faction to determine whether criticism of Israel is to be understood as antisemitic, where do such concessions end? Do we also allow radical Islamists to determine what criticism of Islam should be considered Islamophobic? In my view, concessions to specific groups who ask for censorship is never helpful.

Labour must recognize the internal diversity of the Jewish community, and not allow a political faction to silence other points of view, as is happening now to an unprecedented degree. Adoption of the IHRA definition will harm Palestinians and the Palestinian cause; it will also harm non-Zionist Jews, as can be seen from the attempted expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover from the Labour party on the grounds of his violation of the IHRA definition, and the strong opposition that the definition has faced from Jews whose political convictions differ from the Board of Deputies.

I think Corbyn should publicly consolidate his ties with Jewish Voice for Labour and the Jewish Socialist Group. Of course, not all of his critics will be satisfied by that, but such is the nature of politics. Corbyn should also discourage the demonization of any country or political faction, including Israel and Zionists. Above all, we must not be distracted from the struggle for global justice by this domestic political fight.

The Alice in Wonderland nature of the Labour Party anti-semitism controversy

The Alice in Wonderland nature of the Labour Party anti-semitism controversy
by Ian Sinclair
Medium
12 July 2018

Over the last few months the mainstream media coverage about anti-semitism and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has reached Alice in Wonderland proportions.

How surreal, you ask? Here are a few examples.

Despite the Labour leader having a decades long record of anti-racist work and repeating ad nauseam that he condemns anti-semitism, in April 2018 Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid “urged the Labour leader to ‘once and for all’ clarify his opposition to antisemitism”, the Guardian reported. The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland tweeted that claiming any Jewish person or organisation is “exaggerating or ‘weaponising’ [charges of anti-semitism against Corbyn and Labour]… is itself anti-semitic”. Not to be outdone, Jonathan Arkush, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “said he would also like action to be taken against those who minimise reports of antisemitism”, including Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey, according to the Guardian.

Frustratingly, some on the Left have been sucked into this ludicrous, often hysterical framing. Asked why anti-semitism was “endemic in the Labour Party” by the BBC’s Andrew Neil, the Corbyn supporting Co-Founder of Novara Media Aaron Bastani didn’t question whether it really was “endemic” but answered “I think there are a few explanations”. Similarly, on Frankie Boyle’s BBC show New World Order invited guest comedian David Baddiel mused “Who knows if Jeremy himself is anti-semitic?” Before this he quipped “He [Corbyn] does say there is no room in the Labour Party for anti-semites. And that might be because it’s full.”

Let me be crystal clear. The evidence shows there is a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour Party and on the broader Left. However, the relentless hounding of Corbyn on anti-semitism is based on a number of erroneous, evidence-free assumptions: that it is widespread in the Labour Party; that it is worse in the Labour Party and the Left than on other parts of the political spectrum; and that the problem has worsened under Corbyn.

Analysing polling data a September 2017 report from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (IJPR) found “the political left, captured by voting intention or actual voting for Labour, appears in these surveys as a more Jewish-friendly, or neutral, segment of the population.” Interestingly, the IJPR went on to note “the absence of clear signs of negativity towards Jews on the political left” was “particularly curious in the current context” as there were “perceptions among some Jews of growing left-wing anti-semitism.”

“Despite significant press and public attention on the Labour Party” a October 2016 Home Affairs Committee report on anti-semitism found “there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.”

Analysing YouGov polling data from 2015 and 2017, in March 2018 Evolve Politics website noted “anti-semitic views amongst Labour party voters have actually reduced substantially” since Corbyn was elected leader. Moreover, the report highlights the Tories and UKIP “have a far bigger problem with their voters agreeing with anti-semitic statements.”

Though the survey evidence is for Labour voters rather than members of the Labour Party, it still provides a valuable corrective to the dominant narrative, I think.

The warped nature of the debate is evidenced by the two high profile cases of supposed anti-semitism — activist Marc Wadsworth and former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

Speaking at the June 2016 launch of the Chakrabarti Inquiry report into allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, Wadsworth accused Ruth Smeeth MP of “working hand in hand” with the Daily Telegraph — something Smeeth and her supporters labelled anti-semitic. Wadsworth has said he wasn’t aware Smeeth was Jewish. But even if he was aware, how, exactly, is referring to her alleged links with a right-wing newspaper anti-semitic?

A couple of months earlier, Livingstone did a live radio interview about allegations Labour MP Naz Shah was anti-semitic. “Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. This was before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”, Livingstone noted, somewhat off topic.

After the interview Labour MP John Mann famously confronted Livingstone on television, calling him a “lying racist” and “Nazi apologist”, and accusing him of “rewriting history”.

Livingstone and Wadsworth have both been forced out of the party.

However, discussing the controversy in an Open Democracy interview, the American Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein noted “Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough, and lacked nuance. But he does know something about that dark chapter in history.”

The work of Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Distinguished Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Vermont, confirms Livingstone’s comments, though insensitive and unhelpful (including for Corbyn), were broadly correct. “Throughout the 1930s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews”, the academic noted in his book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, published by Cambridge University Press in 2008. Indeed, Nicosia notes a formal agreement — the Haavara Transfer Agreement — was signed between the Zionist movement and Nazi government in 1933, “facilitating Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine by allowing Jewish immigrants to Palestine to take a small portion of their assets with them.”

The Nazi government’s support for Zionism, of course, was not sincere but “temporary”, “largely superficial” and instrumental, Nicosia explains. And the relationship between Zionist organisations and the Nazis was obviously “not one of mutual respect and cooperation between equals” but something forced on the Jewish population by the most unfavourable of circumstances. With these caveats in mind, the historical fact, however inconvenient, remains: the Nazis, for their own interests, broadly supported Zionism in the 1930s.

When considering the controversy, it is important to understand two things. First, as I have already noted, there is a real problem of anti-semitism on the Left that needs to be addressed. Second, anti-semitism is being used by opponents of Corbyn inside and outside of the Labour Party to undermine his leadership. More broadly, anti-semitism is being weaponised in an attempt to neuter criticism of Israel, and to minimise the ability of a future Corbyn government to support Palestinian rights and criticise Israel. As Daniel Finn notes in his superb April 2018 Jacobin magazine article: “There is nobody in such close proximity to power in a major Western state with a comparable record for Palestinian rights.”

This contextual reading is validated by Tory-supporting Arkush’s recent assertion that Corbyn holds “anti-Semitic views”.

“He was a chairman of Stop the War, which is responsible for some of the worst anti-Israel discourse”, Arkush said, giving the game away.

The intense political pressure created by this media-driven shit-storm has put the Labour leadership in a very difficult position — made worse by Corbyn’s own stupid 2012 comments on Facebook about the removal of an anti-semitic mural. However, the leadership has arguably been too defensive, which though it might make short-term tactical sense, is likely storing up problems for the future.

Rather than capitulate, Project Corbyn needs to do three things. First, be clear there is a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour Party and on the broader Left, and deal with any accusations swiftly, effectively and, most of all, fairly. Second, follow Owen Jones’s suggestion of carrying out a wide-ranging, class conscious political education programme to combat conspiratorial thinking. And third, it needs to stand up firmly and unapologetically to any bogus claims of anti-semitism being made for nakedly political purposes.

“It’s a test of the movement’s mettle”, Finn argues. “If we can’t hold the line in defense” on this “we certainly won’t be in any condition to resist the pressure that is still to come”, he writes. “Across a whole range of issues, from the Saudi war in Yemen to the privatization of the NHS, the ability to hold up under heavy fire will be essential. Things are going to get a lot harder. If we start retreating now, sooner or later there won’t be anything left to defend.”

It was welcome, therefore, to see Corbyn’s spokesperson give such a robust response to Arkush’s shameful allegations, stating his “attempt to conflate strong criticism of Israeli state policies with antisemitism is wrong and undermines the fight both against antisemitism and for justice for the Palestinians. It should be rejected outright.”

More of this, please.

A behind-the-scenes battle over Labour’s foreign policy

A behind-the-scenes battle over Labour’s foreign policy
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
9 January 2018

Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, Emily Thornberry has been one of his key allies.

After serving as the shadow secretary of state for defence and shadow secretary of state for exiting the European Union, Thornberry has been shadow foreign secretary since June 2016.

The Islington South and Finsbury MP has proven to be an effective politician, gaining plaudits for her performance at the dispatch box standing in for Corbyn at Prime Minister’s Questions and for ambushing Tory minister Michael Fallon on The Andrew Marr Show about the time he attended a reception with Bashar al-Assad to celebrate the Syrian president winning an election.

However, though they have largely been ignored by Labour supporters and left-wing commentators, Thornberry’s comments last year about Israel are very concerning.

Speaking at a November Jewish News/Bicom Balfour 100 event, she noted Israel “still stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particular in respect of women and LGBT communities, in a region where oppression, discrimination and inequality is too often the norm.”

A December speech she gave at the Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner “could have been written by a pro-Israel lobbyist,” argued Asa Winstanley from Electronic Intifada.

Her statement that it was Israeli “pioneers … who made the deserts bloom” repeated one of the founding and “racist myth[s]” of Israel, Winstanley went on to note.

Amazingly, at the end of the speech she described the former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres as “a hero of the left, of the state of Israel and of the cause of peace.”

In contrast, in 2005, US dissident Noam Chomsky called Peres “an iconic mass murderer,” presumably for his role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that led to the creation of Israel and for being head of government when Israel shelled a United Nations compound in Lebanon in 1996, killing over 100 civilians.

After conducting an investigation, Amnesty International concluded the attack was intentional.

In both speeches Thornberry highlighted the denial of rights to Palestinians in the occupied territories, which makes her statement about Israel being “a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy” all the more laughable.

As the title of a 2015 article in the Independent newspaper by the academic Yara Hawari explained, “Israel is supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East, yet 4.5 million Palestinians under its control can’t vote.”

“The everyday lives of Palestinians [in the West Bank] is controlled by the IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces]. And it is done brutally,” Hawari noted.

“Movement is rigidly controlled, access to resources is denied and Israeli military incursions into villages and towns are frequent.

“Palestinians see violent settler rampages on a daily basis, which often involve the burning of agricultural land and physical assaults on anyone who gets in their way.”

Famously, former US president Jimmy Carter labelled the Israeli occupation an example of “apartheid.”

Michael Lynk, the UN rapporteur for human rights in the occupied territories, recently noted the “suffocating economic and travel blockade” Israel maintains “has driven Gaza back to the dark ages,” with “more than 60 per cent of the population of Gaza … reliant upon humanitarian aid.”

Israel is a “settler colonial state that flouts international law on a daily basis by oppressing the Palestinians in varying states of occupation,” Hawari concluded.

“And it does so with European and American complicity. The shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East? Far from it.”

Thornberry’s remarks aren’t that surprising if you consider her political career.

Until Corbyn won the Labour leadership, her politics and voting record fit comfortably with the more liberal, often interventionist, section of the British Establishment.

She was, as the New Statesman reported in 2016, “one of [Ed] Miliband’s inner circle.” As shadow attorney general, she voted for Britain’s disastrous military intervention in Libya in 2011 and, in 2014, for Britain to conduct air strikes on Isis in Iraq.

Turning to domestic politics, she abstained on the 2013 vote about the coalition government’s Workfare programme, the scheme in which people on Jobseeker’s Allowance are forced to carry out unpaid work in order to keep receiving their benefits.

And she abstained again on the 2015 vote for the Welfare Bill, which leaked government figures showed would push 40,000 more children below the poverty line. As Tony Benn used to say, politicians can be divided into two categories, signposts and weathercocks.

Thornberry’s politics are important because, as Dr David Wearing noted last year, the “anti-militarist and anti-imperialist” Corbyn “has a real chance of being our next prime minister.”

“Not only is that new in Britain, I think it’s new internationally,” the teaching fellow in international relations at Royal Holloway, University of London, explained in a Media Democracy podcast.

“I can’t think of any time in the last several decades where it has been a realistic possibility that the leader of a UN security council permanent member, a great power, a great capitalist Western power, could be in the next few years an anti-militarist and an anti-imperialist. I don’t think there is a precedent for that. So it’s really huge. It’s a challenge to the foreign policy elite, it’s a challenge to conventional wisdom.”

At the same time, writing in June 2017, British historian Mark Curtis noted that, although Labour’s general election manifesto made “several clear breaks from current UK foreign policy,” there was also evidence that, “if the manifesto is implemented in its current form, it is likely to still promote extremism in UK foreign policy” (Curtis considers much of Britain’s bipartisan post-1945 foreign policy to be extreme).

Curtis highlights pledges to “support development and innovation” in the defence industry and maintain the Tories’ 2 per cent military spending commitment, along with half-hearted statements on the so-called “special relationship” with the US, international development and Israel-Palestine.

Incidentally, Curtis described Thornberry’s “positioning” on foreign affairs in an October 2017 interview she did with Middle East Eye as “basically Blairite.”

There is, then, a battle over the nature of Labour’s foreign policy — not least over Trident nuclear weapons — within the Parliamentary Labour Party, of course, but also within the shadow cabinet and probably within Corbyn’s core circle itself.

This ongoing struggle probably provides the context behind the Guardian’s recent feature-length interview with Thornberry, with the liberal organ taking the unusual step of advertising the interview over a week before it appeared in the newspaper.

Why? As the interviewer noted, Thornberry is “widely tipped to be the party’s next leader,” but after Corbyn led Labour’s extraordinary general election campaign, direct assaults on his leadership, like the attempted coup in 2016, are no longer viable.

The Guardian’s promotion of Thornberry may well herald a switch to a subtler, longer-term strategy that looks ahead to the next Labour leadership contest.

After all, Jezza isn’t getting any younger. Thornberry is the perfect candidate for Guardian “centrist” types who would like to neuter Corbynism — someone who can gain the backing of significant numbers of Corbyn supporters while at the same time diluting the movement’s relative radicalism by returning the Labour Party to safer, Establishment-friendly ground.

With all this in mind, it is important that all those who want to see an anti-imperialist, humane and sane British foreign policy raise their voices against Thornberry when she glosses over Israel’s abysmal human rights record and tacks too closely to the Establishment line.

The basic tenets of Labour’s foreign policy need to be argued about, settled and publicised right now, rather than being fought over in office under intense pressure from the media, military and opposing political parties.

Remaining silent — perhaps in the belief that criticising Thornberry will weaken Corbyn — is surely short-term politicking that will only increase the chances of Corbyn’s Labour Party disappointing if it gains power.